A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for

Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

Senate will come to order. Sergeant of Arms will close the doors.
Members go to their seats. Members as well as guests in the gallery,
please take a moment to silence all of your electronic devices.
[Speaker changes]
Mr. President.
[Speaker changes]
Senator Apodaka what causes you to rise?
[Speaker changes]
Motion please.
[Speaker changes]
Senator Apodaka has the floor for his motion.
[Speaker changes]
Mr. President, I move the rules be suspended to the end of House
Bill 695, Foreign Laws, that was read in while we were on recess be
brought forth for immediate consideration.
[Speaker changes]
?? there’s going to be an objection.
[Speaker changes]
Senator Nesbitt objects to the motion to suspend the rules. So we
would have to take a vote on that. It will need a 3/5 of the majority
to pass. So the question before the senate is the motion to suspend the
rules, all in favor vote aye, opposed vote no. 5 seconds be allowed
for the voting clerk will record the vote.
[Speaker changes]
Senators. I did – I forgot to mention that prior to that vote
Senator ?? Hatsell, Bingham, and McLaurin have excuse absences. ???
Hatsell, Bingham, McLaurin. Senator Woodard ,Tillman, aye. Farman, no.
Woodard, no. Brown, aye.
[Speaker changes]
Mr. President. Please change my vote to no.
[Speaker changes]
Senator Ford changes his vote to no. Is everybody’s vote in?
We have 29 having voted in the affirmative and 12 in the negative.
With 41, I think we need a 25. Ford vote no, 28, 13. Is that correct
madam clerk? We need 25 for 3/5 so the motion to suspend the rules does
pass. HB 696, Clerk will read.
[Speaker changes]
HB 695, Family, Faith, and Freedom Protection Act.
[Speaker changes]
Senator Daniels recognized to explain the bill.
[Speaker changes]
Thank you, Mr. President. Members of the Senate, this bill is a
consolidation of several house bills and portions of one Senate bill
that have been filed this session. Specifically, the first section of
the bill, I guess if you have questions, I’ll refer those to Senator
Goolsby as the debate goes on but I can certainly explain the rest of
the bill. So I guess the best…
[Speaker changes]
Mr. President.
[Speaker changes]
Senator Brown for what purpose?
[Speaker changes]
To ask a question. I apologized for interrupting but it’s not on my
dashboard. Is it on everybody else’s?
[Speaker changes]
It is up on the dashboard. Senator Kinnaird does not have it on her
dashboard either. Anybody else? Senators just raise your hands right
now if it’s not showing up on your dashboard. There are a handful of
hands so let’s give this a second to regenerate if we can try there.
Regenerate your devices senators and…. Make sure everybody is connected
to the network . Is there anybody that does not have it on their device
yet? Any hands? Anybody that does not have it? Senator Kinnaird. We’re
still waiting on Senator Kinnaird. Senator Walters you can look on your
neighbor. [laughs] Senator Kinnaird, do you have it up on your screen?
Everybody has it on their screen. Senator Daniel you can continue.
[Speaker changes]
Thank you, Mr. President. Section 2 of the bill deal with the
application of the foreign law. This provision guarantees the protection
of constitutional rights, granted to individuals, businesses from
foreign law

It prevents courts from applying following divorce, alimony, child
custody actions and contacts if doing so would violate that person's
fundamental constitutional rights. The next section is healthcare
conscious protection. Current- Currently state law protects doctors and
nurses only. This merely expands the definition of healthcare providers
to include pharmacists, nurse assistants and other providers who
currently have no right to object to preforming an abortion on these
grounds. Because we believe that healthcare workers deserve the same
protection that doctors and nurses have. The next section is limiting
abortion funding. We are exercising North Carolina's right under the
Affordable Care Act to opt out of covering abortions under plans offered
through a healthcare exchange. Except in cases of rape, incest or the
life of the mother is endangered. 22 states have already exercised this
right and it's consistent with both our state Health Plan Law and with
federal healthcare for federal employees. Next section is- well actually
the other part too is that this provisions extends down to local and
county governments. If they have local health plans those would prohibit
government funds from being used to provide elective abortion coverage,
but would still have exceptions for life of the mother, rape, and
incest. The next section is prohibiting sex-selective abortions. We
believe that having an abortion because the child is not the desired
gender is just plain wrong and that it is discrimination and should be
condemned. We don't tolerate gender discrimination in the work place,
nor should we tolerate it when a child's life is at stake. The last
section is sort of tit- I believe it's titled Ammedments to Woman's
Right To Know Act. What this is, is these are basically safety
provisions to ensure the safety of, of, women who would- would be
undergoing a procedure in an abortion clinic. And so the main provision
here is that the physician would be required to be present throughout
the surgical procedure- or wheth- whether it's a medical surgical
abortion or whether it's a medicinally induced abortion. This is just a
safety measure. We've all seen in the news the great tragedies that have
happened in Pennsylvania and we don't want that to happen in North
Carolina. There is a piece that's after that's sort of a rule-making
directive to the Department of Health and Human Services for them to
begin to- to analyze the administrative code as it relates to abortion
clinics and surgical centers. And to try and ensure that we have one set
of standards in North Carolina for the safety of our clinics and our
women and not to have dual standards. That is pretty much a summary of
the bill, Mr. President, and I urge your support and would be glad to
answer any questions.
[Speaker Changes]
Very discussion debate (??). Senetor Kennard for what purpose do you
rise?
[Speaker Changes]
I do not see the public debate which this body has always
represented. We present things in front of the public so that the public
can know what we are doing. We don't sneak things in at 7 O'clock at
night with no notice to the public, no chance to debate. But my own
personal opinion about this bill, is it has so little merit, that I will
not even do what I've done before on every bill that I've cared about.
Which is present facts, present logic, present the view of my
constituents. This bill does not even merit debate on this floor.
[Speaker Changes]
Mr. President?
[Speaker Changes]
Senator McKissick, what purpose do you rise?
[Speaker Changes]
Debate the bill.
[Speaker Changes]
Senetor McKissick has the floor to debate the bill.
[Speaker Changes]
Like my colleague, Senator Kennard, I'm deeply concerned about the
lack of public notice before this very ?? significant piece of
legislation was brought before us. As if we were waiting until the- the
day before the 4th of July, when House is not even in session. When
there are few members of the press which are here, to unfold this very
significant and far-reaching legislation. This legislation essentially
has the effect of putting a padlock on the door on health facilities in
this state that offer healthcare to women, and most particularly
abortion services. Put a padlock on the door. To pretty much eliminate
that option. And that's really in my mind inconsolable. This is the type
of bill that deserve far-reaching debate, the opportunity for people
with pros and cons to come forward and express their thoughts and opin-

If you look at them, what we're attempting to do with the health
benefits has changed. It's unfortunate that we here in North Carolina,
we've decided not to offer state exchange. It's going to be the federal
exchange. To say that the plans that they offer, private plans that
people might purchase, won't be able to obtain coverage for abortions.
That's wrong. People deserve that right.
To say to our cities and towns will not have the right any longer
under their medical coverage plans to offer coverage for persons who
might require an abortion. That's wrong and it's unconscionable. To
establish standards for these facilities that are so stringent and far
reaching that most the facilities in this state that offer that type of
choice. It's unconscionable. It's the wrong thing to do.
I hate to see the state of North Carolina that I'm so very very proud
of, I hate to see it turning it's back on woman's rights. I hate to see
us moving in direction that in my mind is stamping out the right of
choice. And when I think that when Roe v. Wade was considered by the
United States Supreme Court, and the very premise that it's based upon
is the right of privacy. The right for somebody to choose in the privacy
of their own mind, with their family, with their friends, or even
individually and personally. What is right for them.
Regardless of weather you're pro-choice or anti-choice, women deserve
that constitutionally protected right, and it was all based upon the
right of privacy. The right of privacy. Now we seek to encroach upon
that zone of privacy that constitutionally protected right from the
supreme court, to even say why our you obtaining this abortion, if
that's the choice that a person makes, it may be a difficult choice, a
challenging choice. To say are you doing this, because the gender of a
child, that's intrusive, that is personal, and that is wrong.
We may not agree that that's the right reason for people who make
these important personal decisions, but it is a protected right. Here in
North Carolina, we should be deeply concerned about moving this state in
the wrong direction. We can do better. We can protect the rights of
women. We can protect their choices. We can stand up and be pioneers
throughout the south and throughout this nation, but we don't need to
basically take giant steps backwards.
In allowing people those rights to choose what they might like to do
with their bodies. It's the wrong thing for North Carolina. And I'm
ashamed that we're bringing this bill forward that eleventh hour, that
any significant and public debate forcing this issue to be voted on
tonight.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Senator Graham ??? speak to the bill. Senator has the floor, speak to
the bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Thank you mister president. Before I left Charlotte this week, my
ministry of assistant at the university wanted to know if I was watching
what was happening in Texas, and the debate that they were having over
there about a similar piece of legislation. I told her that I was, and
following it on TV, and predicted to her that before we end session that
we will be discussing this bill similar in North Carolina. That was
Monday. Yesterday.
I'm not a fortune teller, but I clearly understand national politics,
and understand how it impacts people right here in Raleigh, in
Charlotte, in Wilson, in Fayetteville, and Greensboro. That it had
nothing to do with, and I respected both sponsors and their presentation
of the bill. But what I do have some heartburn about, and someone who's
been in elective politics first as a member of the Clean City Campaign,
and doing volunteer work in the city council, now in state senate, this
process. This process. The people of North Carolina deserve better than
this. People are watching what we're doing.

Speaker 1: People are listening to what we're saying, and they deserve
better than this. Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life or whatever, I
can debate you... It's what we do, and how we do things. It's not...
??. They come here every night, or every Monday night, ??. I don't
expect people to change their political philosophy overnight. I don't
expect you to all the sudden have a moral awakening about right and
wrong. Many of you believe you are right. What they what's his respect.
What they want is a moderation. What they want is the opportunity to
have their voices heard by their lawmakers: both democrats and
republicans, a right to be honest and open. That right was taken away
tonight, even from the members. ?? Committee, because this is the last
two weeks of sessions, so I've been here long enough to know that
anything can happen, and we're the bidding a major piece of legislation.
Many of you believe that this is the right thing to do. I disagree.
But even if you do, you should stand by your convictions and talk about
this bill in day of the light. Tell people why you support it. Look
them in the eye, and tell them why you think they are wrong. But to do
it in this type of matter is just another blatant example of disrespect
for the public. Disrespect for honest debate. Another example of
overreaching. The bill in itself, and I just sought myself, maybe less
than 1 hour and 10 minutes ago, has a far reaching implications: women
centers across this state may not be able to meet the standards that we
are going to put on tonight. Cities and counties now have to talk about
whether or not the benefits, that I believe they give to their workers,
will be superseded by what the state thinks. Yet another example of
this majority who believes the smaller government telling local
governments what they should do. Telling, giving authorization to
workers who aren't physicians, the right to choose, to make a conscious
decision... That's where they have the debate, the debate to be had.
So, here we are, 7:35, less than 25, 30 minutes in judiciary one, the
bill is on the floor, we're getting ready to vote on it, no public
input, a major piece of legislation, it's the 4th of July weekend,
members of both sides of the aisle absence for various reasons, no
public input, let's do it. No one's watching. Let's just do it. Just
because you can, doesn't mean that you should.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Speaker 2: ?? Further discussion of debate ??. Senator Bloom, ???
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Speaker 3: Senator Daniel, ??.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Speaker 2: Senator Daniel, do you yield?
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Speaker 3: Yes, I yield. Thank you, senator.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Speaker 4: I was reflecting on the last portion of your presentation
where you indicated that the factor, I believe house to be present, in a
procedure, even in chemical procedures. Does that mean that if a doctor
Prescribes, and I don't know what a procedure...

…vote, ‘cause it wouldn’t affect me. But, if a doctor prescribes the
morning after pill, however that is acquired, then he’s….it…the
prescription can’t be filled because he won’t be there when the woman
takes the pill?
[SPEAKER CHANGE] Senator [???:18], there’s a distinction between…the
morning after pill is different from R.U. 486, and so I think the answer
to your question is, “no,” that’s a different procedure. This is for
R.U. 486, which is the chemically-induced abortion that is done at
abortion clinics, not for the over-the-counter pill that can be obtained
at your pharmacist.
[SPEAKER CHANGE] One last follow up.
[SPEAKER CHANGE] Senator Daniel [??? CROSSTALK 1:05]
[SPEAKER CHANGE] It is…and again, we parse words, that’s what our
profession does, but is there anywhere in the bill that says it just
applies to the R.U.4 procedure?
[SPEAKER CHANGE] I don’t think…Senator [???1:17] that the language
specifically says that, that’s just how it’s been communicated to me
from bill drafting, but I would be glad to try to get further
clarification.
[SPEAKER CHANGE] Senator Newton, for what purpose do you rise?
[SPEAKER CHANGE] Speak to the bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGE] Senator Newton has the floor to speak to the bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you, Mr. President. I’ll begin by saying I
don’t know anybody yet that has told me that they think that applying
Sharia law in a courtroom here in the United States is a good idea. I’m
waiting to hear that…maybe when I look at the board I’ll see some people
that I know disagree with me. I don’t know anybody who disagrees with
the idea that a healthcare provider should not be forced to participate
in giving abortion if that violates their conscience. We’ve already got
legislation on the books to that effect. I suspect when I look at the
board I’ll see that there’s some people who disagree with me about that,
but I don’t know anybody yet that disagrees with that. Most of the
people I know don’t think that taxpayer money should be used to fund
abortions. I’ve heard the talking points about procedure and all that;
I don’t know anybody who thinks that’s a good idea. I’m looking forward
to looking at the board and see if I meet some people who disagree with
that. There probably are a few, but I haven’t had that conversation
with them. Most people I know don’t think taxpayer money should be used
to fund abortions. I really don’t know anybody who thinks it’s a bad
idea the doctor’s got to be there when the abortion is going on. Now, I
suspect I’ll meet some people shortly when I look at the board that say
that’s a bad idea, that the doctor shouldn’t have to be there, we don’t
have to worry about women’s safety. But most important, I really don’t
know anybody, and I’m looking forward to hearing it from somebody, who
can explain to me why it’s a good idea that this state should allow
abortion for sex selection. Now, I don’t know anybody who agrees at
that. Maybe when I look at the board I’ll see some folks who do. But
that’s what this bill does. Now, for those of you who want to make a
talking point about procedures, the House has debated every one of those
portions and debated it in full, with television camera present like
they are here, out in the open. And Senator Graham, I’m looking through
the skylights and it’s still light outside. We had a full debate in
J1, didn’t cut anybody off. All the hands that wanted to be raised were
raised. Senator Stein, Senator Nesbitt, had lots of questions. I think
we exhausted their questions. All the debate that was wanted to be had
was had in J1 in a full committee meeting. And guess what? Everybody
in this room is going to have a full opportunity to debate it until we
have that vote. This is a good bill, this is good, common sense
legislation, and I commend it to you.
[SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. President [4:17-4:19 Crosstalk]
[SPEAKER CHANGE] Senator Bryant, for what purpose do you rise?
[SPEAKER CHANGE] I’ll defer to Senator Stein.
[SPEAKER CHANGE] Senator Stein, for what purpose do you rise?
[SPEAKER CHANGE] To debate the bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGE] Senator Stein has the floor to debate the bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGE] Senator Nesbitt, it’s ironic that you made the point
you just made, because I did have the opportunity to ask questions, and
I had another question and you did cut me off. You said I had no more
questions, and so to have said I had the opportunity to exhaust my
questions is a little bit ironic. This IS terrible process, process
does matter. The rules require when there’s a proposed committee
substitute it be given to us the night before. Why? So we can look at
it and we can talk to people…

Speaker 1: Who I have concerns about that legislation before we go into
committee and debate it. We have all this anti -sharia bill on the
counter this morning. And it was a one or two page bill. Then that
meeting gets canceled. All right, fine. Then, we gets a notice on the
floor immediately before, that there is going to be a bill. That bill
is going to be coming back up: an anti-sharia bill. Well, we've seen
that bill before, we are ready to go in there and debated. Well, no. We
go in there, and it is... has 6 or 5 new provisions in there about
abortion. What is the relationship between sharia law and abortion? We
were ready to debate anti sharia law provisions. The irony is, if you
look at the anti-sharia law provision, what it says is the general
assembly here by declares it to be the public policy of this state to
protect its citizens from the application of law that would result in
the violation of a fundamental constitutional right of a natural person.
That's rich. I took out one word: foreign. Why don't we just insert
North Carolina general assembly, because you all are trying to pass a
law, and I'll tell you why I'm going to vote against this bill, senator
Newton, and it's not the ?? selection provision, I don't have any
problem with that. It would be offensive if anybody did that. The
reason I am proposing this legislation is because its intent is to
eliminate a woman's constitutional right to have access to Health Care
procedures for a pregnancy. To eliminate their choice. That is why I'm
opposed to this legislation. This provision says, section seven,
section six, excuse me, "Any facility, any clinic, must have a
suitable facilities, similar for those for licensure of an ambulatory
surgical center. There is one in this entire state that meets this
standard. And abortion is less risky than a colonoscopy. It's less
risky than a dental procedure. Are we going to require dentists to need
surgical ambulatory center standards? Are we going to require
gastroenterologists to perform colonoscopies to meet surgical standards?
There is no reason why that provision is in there. That is to deny
women be a bill it to exercise their fundamental constitutional right
that you are so concerned about, the Sharia faction of North Carolina,
limiting our constitutional right. We don't need to be worried about
them, we need to be worried about our public incentive limitation of
people's fundamental constitutional rights. This bill... this bill and
this process are not worthy of this chamber. I urge you to not vote
this. Let's debate it tomorrow, let's debate it next week, let's let
the public… How many people in this chamber? There are five, six a
citizens in this chamber. I can't... You tell me: am I wrong? Is there
15? Thank you. There are 20 citizens in this chamber. You think 20 a
citizens' care about this piece of legislation? You all are, as senator
Graham said, disrespecting the people of North Carolina, and frankly,
you should be ashamed of yourselves.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Speaker 2: Senator Ryan, ??.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Speaker 3: To debate a bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Speaker 2: Senator Ryan has the floor to debate a bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Speaker 3: I just want to comments two colleagues that I've just feel
sad about the lack of integrity and honesty in this process, and the
fact that you would even tried to pretend for claim that it was open
when you know that there are people in this state who disagree what you
were doing, who have concerns about what you are doing, who have
information to provide about the provisions in this bill that was no
public notice of it at any time, when people had those positions, could
attend. Yes. Your supporters, who are the ones you notified you were
going to do this, on a selected public notice, they are here in the
chamber, but not the people that you…

Speaker 1: ... Would have had invested interest in this, the women in
this state. And yes. You are taking to continue to try and dominate
women, enslave our uterus is to perform functions according to what core
values want, without using the body parts to have the goal to have the
courage to stand up to the light of day, and I mean the lights of the
business day, two put your provisions out in the public eye and have
them on as the debated. Yes, some of these provisions were in bills from
the house, but not all of them came out of the house in house bills, so
this has not been an honest and fair process, and I feel disappointed
about that. And wrong will not prevail. You may have a short term
victory in terms of what you're trying to accomplish here, but in the
long run, you will not prevail, because your process is flawed. Thank
you.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Speaker 2: Senator Parmen, ???
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Speaker 1: To speak on the bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Speaker 2: Senator Parmen has the floor, speak on the bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Speaker 3: Thank you Mr. President and colleagues, end well I've
realized what the conversation we are having... It doesn't matter too
most of the members in this chamber, because your lives are made up.
However, I was reflecting as we talk about womens rights and their right
to choose, particularly on this issue of abortion, and I remember as a
young woman when abortions weren't available, how would that went about
getting those abortions. And I shudder to think that, that's what we
are opening the women of this state again too. Back alleys, coat
hangers, all mixtures of medicine, medications, to abort pregnancies,
when this state should allow women to have the medical procedure
performed by a Doctor. I heard my colleagues use the word, "
equality" and "bad ideas". I think it's just a hypocrisy
of how we do things in this chamber, and we are referred to as the
honorables. And I think we are less than on a ripple. We our stooped
to the measures we have tonight to bring this bill, when we had no
knowledge and could not contact our constituents to even let them know
the bill was going to be heard. So, I just think that we are not doing
the right thing. I think it's overreaching, as it has been said, and
the people of North Carolina simply are fed up, and as a senator, I'm
embarrassed and ashamed to be forced to have to vote no on this bill in
this manner. Thank you.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Speaker 2: Senator Daniel, ???
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Speaker 4: Speak as I can tell.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Speaker 2: Senator Daniel has the floor to speak to the bill a second
time.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Speaker 4: I"m a little surprised at some of the remarks that
I'm hearing from the other side of the aisle. The last month, two
months, three months, after the press decided that they were willing to
actually show what went on in the ?? Clinic, and to show the ?? trial,
we learned that back alley abortions aren't occurring in the back alley,
they are occurring in abortion clinics. This bill is about safety.
This is about... last session, we had the women's right to know act, and
the other side said, "you're getting in between a woman's
relationship with her doctor." So, now they're opposed to the
woman's doctor being in the room while they're having the abortion. I
just don't see the logic. This is about patient safety. 85% of the
abortions in this state are done on women that are 18 to 24, and either
you think they deserve to walk into a clinic that is clean and safe, or
you don't. We shouldn't have to standards for surgical centers in North
Carolina, we should have one. To require regulations that are
burdensome on orthopedics and they can compete in the marketplace, then
private abortion providers can, too. To correct one statement that was
made, we're not voting on standards for clinics tonight, anyway, other
than the doctors presence. We're voting to allow DHHS to create rules
that they will bring back to the legislator, and then we will approve
them or disprove them. So, I certainly encourage my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle...

Vote for a bill that promotes safety, that promotes healthcare
conscience. If you're really concerned about the fundamental right, then
lets have a safe fundamental right for the women of North Carolina.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Mister president.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Senator Brian ??
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Speak a second time.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Senator Brian asked to speak for a second time.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Again I feel like we're being disingenuous here. This bill is not
about safety. It is not about women's healthcare. It's not about
anything in Pennsylvania. It's about limiting the access of women in
North Carolina to a health procedure that is their constitutional right.
We already had provisions about the health consciousness of the
healthcare providers. The doctor already has to be present to provide an
abortion, otherwise you couldn't get one.
The abortion clinics are some of the most heavily regulated health
procedures in this state. All of that is sufficient, and women are
getting a fine healthcare experience in this situation in North
Carolina. There have not been any reported problems in that regard. This
is not about the issues that are purported to be the case, it's
disingenuous in that this is really about limiting women's rights and
it's important to stand up and make that point. Thank you.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
??? further discussion and debate.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Senator Woodard.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Speak on the bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Senator Woodard has the floor, speak to the bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Thank you mister president. Ladies and gentleman of the senate. You
can dress this up however you want. You can come up with every euphemism
in the book. You can give this bill every patriotic title you want, but
that doesn't change the simple fact that this bill is an end run around
our committees, our procedures, and most importantly our public. To
place severe restrictions in the way of women's access to safe and legal
reproductive health.
In last fall's gubernatorial debate, Governor McCrory committed that
he wouldn't sign any further restrictions on abortion. Governor, the
women of North Carolina are counting on you to keep your commitment.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
?? further discussion or debate.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Senator Nesbitt ??
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Thank you mister president. Speak on the bill.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Senator Nesbitt has the floor. Speak to the bill
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Members of the senate, you've heard this in several speeches tonight,
but I feel like we've got to repeat it, and we've got to understand it
in here. We're treating this place as if it's ours. To do with as we
please. The fifty of us. Actually, the thirty three of you. And that all
that matters is weather you prevail in here.
Those rules were put in place not so you could suspend them and beat
us, you can beat us everyday all day. We don't have enough votes. They
were put on there because there's a process out here where the public
gets to see what we're doing. You put a committee substitute online the
night before so the public can get it. They can get it. We can get it.
Everybody has a chance to look at it.
Now we're in here debating a bill that's going to effect better than
half our population directly, and the rest of them indirectly. They
haven't had a chance to look at any of this. And I heard in the
committee, and I've heard on this floor, I was told it's my thinking,
The bill was intended. This bill's not had any scrutiny, and we don't
know what it does. We kind of got an idea. You all got an idea, and I
got an idea. I'm going to give you a couple of my ideas here in a
minute.
But the most important thing is we got to state full of people out
there that don't even know we're down here doing this. And let me tell
you what I think you're doing to them. I think the provision having to
do with ambulatory care centers is going to do away with healthcare
as...

…know it, for women who need help. And there are gonna be more of them,
not less of them. When you force these things in the ambulatory
surgical centers, Planned Parenthood has four centers in the state, none
of them comply. ..out of business. No one told us that in committee, I
scurried around and got the information myself. That crowd’s gonna
descend on you, when you get back down here’s gonna know it. It’s a
frontal attack on these facilities that offer women’s healthcare to
women – things that they need: mammograms, etc. You are eliminating
abortion coverage for people who may be anti-abortion, but may need one
later in life. Now the way I understand these exchanges are set up, no
you can’t use government money for that procedure. But they were going
to provide something that women could purchase separately with their own
money. You’re trying to cut that off to where no woman will have
abortion coverage. What happens if a life is in danger? What happens
if she’s a victim of rape and incest? What happens if it’s your daughter
or your granddaughter, and they need help, and the policy that you have
doesn’t cover abortion? [1:36-1:37 INAUDIBLE] everybody in here can pay
for it, that ain’t no problem. Well everybody out there can’t pay for
it, and you have health insurance for a reason, and it’s to cover all
these contingencies. Not only are we saying that to people who might be
in our health exchange, we’ve said that to people in our…we’re saying
the local government said you can’t do it either. Now, you all watch
the news just like I do, I don’t know much you watch about Texas, but
we’re sitting in here tonight and you’re gonna win this debate and feel
really good about yourself because you…all you big, grownup, grey-haired
men have beat three women. I wanna see what you do with about 10,000 of
them. Well, they’re coming. ..they’re coming…they’re not gonna put up
with you doing this to them in the dark of the night, in the middle of a
holiday week.
Mr. President…Senator [2:51 CROSSTALK]
Can you please tell me what time it is, and is the sun still out?
It’s eight o’clock at night on Tuesday night, we’re back in session on a
bill that wasn’t even on the calendar at six o’clock.
Mr. President, I wanna object the third reading right now, so we can
talk tomorrow more when the sun’s out.
I think that would be a wonderful idea when the time comes. And then
by tomorrow some people in the public will know about this bill and
they’ll be able to tell us what it does. Yes, you cannot keep doing
this to the general public of this state. You’ve got people already
marching on this place, and that’s over how we’ve been behaving. And
you start dragging up a committee meeting, no notice to the public, go
down there and do a bill that disenfranchises women to this extent, and
they’re not included in the debate, there’s nobody there from their side
to even speak for them, and bring the bill up here, and I’m sorry if
I’ve hurt your feelings…I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings, I meant to
tell the truth on this stuff because this is bad, bad business and this
is not our place to abuse. This place deserves more respect that to do
this kind of thing to the people.
[SPEAKER CHANGE]Any further discussion or debate? Hearing none.
Question for the Senate as it passes the Senate committee substitute to
HB 695 on a second reading. All in favor vote “aye” opposed
vote “no.” Five seconds we will have for the voting, and the court
clerk will record the vote. Forward, forward, silver forward. No.
Twenty-seven having voted in the affirmative and fourteen in the
negative, the Sentate Committee sub…

HB 695 passes a second reading.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Objection.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Senator Brian objects.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Senator, I already objected, let the record show.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Senator Apodaca objects to third reading, and it will remain on the
calendar.
That concludes our calendar for this evening. Do we have any notices
or announcements?
Is there any further business to come before the senate? If not, the
chair recognizes Senator Berger.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Mister President.
Democrats will caucus immediately after session.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Chair recognizes Senator Berger for motion.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Thank you mister president. I move that the senate do now adjourn
subject the recipe of committee reports, the receipt of messages from
the governor, and the re-referral of the bills and resolutions to
reconvene on Wednesday July 3rd, 2013 at 9 AM.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
The motions of the senate do now adjourn, subject to the stipulations
stated by Senator Berger to reconvene Wednesday July 3rd at 9AM.
Seconded by Senator Barefoot, all in favor say aye. Opposed no. The ayes
have it. The senate stands adjourned.